Chief Leonard Adoki V. Mr. Promise Robinson (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Rivers State, Ahoada Judicial Division delivered on 31/10/05 refusing, the appellant’s application for an interlocutory injunction against the respondent. The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision. On 14/2/06, pursuant to a motion on notice filed on 7/12/06, he was granted leave by this court to appeal against it. The notice of appeal dated 9/11/05 containing four grounds of appeal was deemed filed on 14/2/06, Also pursuant to the said motion time was enlarged for the appellant to file his brief of argument. The appellant’s brief dated 7/12/05 was deemed duly filed and served on 14/2/06.

The respondent, although duly served with all the processes in this appeal, including the appellant’s brief of argument did not react thereto or file any process herein. Consequently this Court on 29/10/08 granted the appellant’s application filed on 9/11/06 for the appeal to be heard on his brief alone. When the appeal came up for hearing on 27/5/09 the respondent was absent and unrepresented by counsel. We were satisfied from our records that he had been duly served with a hearing notice against that date for the hearing of the appeal. Mr. G.V Obomanu, learned counsel for the appellant adopted the appellant’s brie and urged us to allow the appeal.

The appellant formulated the following issues for the determination of the appeal:

1. Whether the court below ought to maintain the status quo and preserve the res. (Grounds 2 & 3)
2. Whether the court below adequately and sufficiently considered the materials placed before it by the appellant. (Ground 1)
3. Whether the court below was biased by descending into the arena and suo motu proffering (sic) arguments in support of the respondent.

(Ground 4)

Having carefully examined the three issues formulated by the appellant, I am of the considered view that they could be conveniently condensed into one sole issue thus: Whether the learned trial Judge was right in refusing to grant the application for interlocutory injunction. The appeal shall be determined on this issue. All the submissions in the appellant’s brief will be considered in determining this issue.

Before going into the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to state briefly the facts that gave rise to it. By paragraph 25 of his statement of claim dated 29/9/05, the plaintiff (now appellant), sought the following reliefs against the defendant (now respondent) before the High Court of Rivers State, Nchia:

(a)A declaration that the plaintiff is the Uwema, Oolah Ema, Paramount Ruler/Chief of Amalem Town, Central. Abua and as the Prime Minister of Abua has the exclusive right, power and authority to install the Uwema Abua and present him for coronation by the Abua Odual Council of Traditional Rulers and Chiefs.

(b)A declaration that the defendant is not the Uwema of Amalem Abua and he has no right to perform the function of the Uwema of Amalem or to parade himself as such and that it is contrary to the custom and tradition of the Amalem Abua for the defendant to perform the functions of the Uwema Amalem or to parade himself as such when the incumbent Chief (plaintiff who was properly installed and coronate) is still alive and on the throne of the Uwema Amalem Abua.

(c)A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, either by himself, his agents, servants, privies and cohorts from installing himself, getting installed, placing himself out, parading himself, as and/or from claiming to de the Uwema/the Chief/ the Paramount Chief of Amalem Abua and/or from performing the functions of the Uwema/ the paramount ruler of Amalem Abua and/or from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the performance by the plaintiff of his functions as the Uwema Oolah Emah/ the Chief/Paramount ruler of Amalam Abua, Capital of Abua clan.

(d)N500, 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) damages for interference with, usurpation of, and infringement on the rights, functions and duties of the plaintiff.

On 2/7/2001 the appellant obtained an ex-parte order of interim injunction against the respondent in the following terms:

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an intirim injunction be and is hereby granted restraining the defendant/respondent, his agents, servants and or privies or cohorts from appointing the defendant/respondent or any person as tile Chief/paramount Ruler/Uwema/Oolah Ema of Amalem Abua and/or from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the performance by the plaintiff/applicant of his functions as the Uwema/Oolah Ema/Chief/Paramount Ruler of Amalem Town Abua pending the determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”

The motion on notice for interlocutory injunction seeking the same relief pending the determination of the substantive suit, which was dated and filed on 28/6/2001, was adjourned to 17/7/2001 for hearing. The appellant filed a 19-paragraph affidavit with exhibits annexed thereto in support of the application. The respondent filed 20-pragraph counter affidavit deposed to on 26/7/2001. The appellant, on 11/10/2001, deposed to a further affidavit in support of the motion with various exhibits annexed thereto. On 28/11/2001 the respondent filed a further counter affidavit and annexed thereto an exhibit, which was inadvertently omitted from the first counter affidavit. On 14/5103 the respondent filed a further further counter affidavit.